Case 3313776/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Mullen v Whitworth Bros Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313776/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Mullen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Hutchings, heard the case by CVP on 9 March 2022 and gave its decision orally. In the written judgment record, the claimant's complaint of breach of contract for non-payment of holiday pay was found not well founded. The tribunal held that the respondent did not owe the claimant any sums in respect of holiday pay.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's complaint of breach of contract for non-payment of notice pay. It found that the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice. No financial award is recorded in the judgment, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract for non-payment of holiday pay; the tribunal found it was not well founded and that the respondent did not owe any sums in respect of holiday pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of breach of contract for non-payment of notice pay; the tribunal found it was not well founded and that the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.